Posted
by
Soulskill
on Friday December 07, 2012 @01:22PM
from the fully-updated-GPL-drivers dept.

Deathspawner writes "Perhaps hinting at the fact that the official Steam for Linux launch isn't too far off, Valve has begun updating some game pages to include Linux system requirements. Some games don't list only Ubuntu as the main supported distro, with some listing Linux Mint and Fedora as well. A common theme is that Valve recommends you always use a 'fully updated' OS, regardless of which distro you use. And based on the system requirements laid out so far, it's safe to say that Serious Sam 3: BFE will undoubtedly be the most system-intensive game released at launch."

While I know of the advantages that Linked libraries give, such as being to update a huge set of programs at once, Allowing us coders to change how programs operate by changing the library source. However in the terms of Distributing software for different distributions it becomes a nightmare for the author. Because they can only really test a small percentage of these distributions, and who know if that unknown distribution uses that library or has the library requires to install it...

Systems like APT do a wonderful job of solving the problem for us. But not all distributions use APT and/or they may have a different set of repositories.

That's the main reason Debian is against applications shipping their own static versions of libraries instead of using the system library, because it requires everyone be on top of updating, especially for security issues. If everyone links with the Debian libfoo, then if there's a security issue they can just update it. But if some projects have their own local copy of libfoo in their git tree, then you're hoping the upstream maintainer is going to promptly re-sync it. Often that doesn't happen: projects sometimes ship ancient internal versions of libraries where they just did a cp -r into their own project tree years ago and never kept up with updates. So Debian expends considerable effort ripping out these local forks.

How about dozens of show stoppers, would that work? Well here ya go [narod.ru] and here is the page from 3 years ago [narod.ru] so you can compare. Hell even one of the developers of Red Hat [google.com] says trhe current "let the devs do it" is made of fail and the problems he list are damned near identical to mine, too many drivers and too few devs equal no QA and QC so buggy shit gets shoved out the door, so I really don't know how much more proof one needs besides the fact that every major OEM and BB retailer has tried your product and n

You know what fixes both of those issues?
FREE software. Then the code can be fixed even after the original developer is long gone.

Hardly. Not everyone who wants the problem fixed has the skills or time to do so, and not everyone who has the skills or time wants to fix the problem. The result is a ton of problems in FOSS ends up going unfixed all the time.

Do you promise not to complain when an update to the library breaks the game?

It behooves the platform vendor to not break the platform for software that is dependent on it. That is, presumably, the purpose of an LTS release. Not that this is impossible, Microsoft updates have broken software on Windows, but it is unlikely to happen in a way that doesn't blow up a lot of other stuff.

No actually it is your problem. If Linux is a fragmented mess and it takes a lot of man hours to support all the distros, companies may just give it a miss.

Fortunately there is no reason why any company would ever have to support "all the distros." My main desktop runs Gentoo. My laptop runs Arch. I also do not care whether or not Valve or any other company with a proprietary product decides to support my niche distros. Those of us who choose to run a non-mainstream distro presumably also know how to make it work with whatever software we want to run. Your concern over the lack of support companies give to people like me is heart-warming, but it's also qu

Then simply tell the user to run ldd against the game binary and then fend for themselves.

If you run something that doesn't hold your hand, then that's a conscious choice that you've made. It's completely reasonable for Valve to treat you accordingly and assume that you can fend for yourself and understand the related instructions.

Or you could just go the "windows style installer" route and stop acting like a stupid hysterical ninny pretending that these kinds of tools for Linux haven't existed for years and years already.

Totally off topic, but actually I think the main problem with APT is not the linking, they do solve that wonderfully; and the few times that I need something that is not (yet) available from apt I can just compile myself.

What I do find problematic is the interface of apt with language-specific library repositories. Eg pip for python, cran for R. I generally want to use those repositories since they are the de facto standard in those communities, but (1) that gives clashes if some other apt package requires

Static and dynamic linking are treated the same as far as the GPL is concerned. Changing from static to dynamic linking won't make your software compliant. Fortunately most important libraries are released under the LGPL (or a more permissive license such as MIT or BSD), which makes your issue irrelevant.

I just got my beta invite yesterday -after specifying I was on Debian Sid (I never expected an invite since I'm not using Ubuntu). Will fiddle with it and get it running today, I'll definitely buy a few games just because.

It's almost like Valve realizes game betas are good for testing out different hardware/software specs, instead of a means of free publicity and to confirm the game works on the same specs tested in-house.

The way I see it, this entire situation is hilarious. Us Linux people have been wanting something like this to happen for, well, forever, and it is finally happening. The lack of serious gaming on Linux has been one of the things holding it back on the desktop market. Now that we're finally getting that, and a serious contender to the Windows gaming hegemony is present, all anyone can do is cry and scream "not good enough dammit not good enough" because not every Steam title ever made will be available on release. I bet if the year of the linux desktop ever happens/. will be the first one to criticize it.

See, by the time of the Year of the Linux Desktop, Linux will be too mainstream. We'll have all switched to some more "trendy" or "underground" OS. Possibly one of the BSDs, or maybe OS/2 if it's "retro" enough, but possibly some yet-to-be-written OS. HURD, perhaps?

The linked article shows how Amnesia (which is an excellent game, btw, at least part 1 is) will be supported on different platforms, but I'm pretty sure Amnesia already runs on those platforms. So it seems to me that Valve is supporting ubuntu, but will list other OS'es that happen to be supported by the (original) publisher?

Of course this is all deduction from rumors and two screenshots, so take cum grano salis....

More choices typically work out better for consumers. Sure, you can game on your WinPC, or OSX, or your Dreamcast or XBox or whatever, but arguing that enabling Linux gaming is a bad idea is terribly short sighted. More choices = more competition = better value for consumers.

I, for one, will likely sign up for steam/Linux and make sure to buy a game or three to see how it goes as I support this development. I sincerely hope Valve gets plenty rich doing this as it finally proves a business model that Loki Games (remember them?) couldn't do a decade or so ago. (I bought all their games)

Maybe this is how it already works - but if it isn't here's an avenue I would investigate:

Shouldn't it be possible for Steam to build a hypervisor type environment? If they have a common hypervisor they port the game once to run in that environment. Then all they need to do is get their hypervisor running on Windows, *NIX, MAC, whatever.

There's definitely some additional processing overhead on this, but it seems that it would be a very efficient model once you have the hypervisor built. I would think you could probably push the specs/API/etc to the game publishers and have the game developer team adopt their game to the platform.

I don't know anything about how Steam works under the covers so maybe they're already doing this. I'm curious, but not enough to do the legwork.

This technology already exists in the form of Java. Java solved this exact problem in 1997 but despite massive improvements Java is still about 1.5x to 2x slower than native code (it used to be 5-10x slower, so they've really done some work!) which doesn't hurt most applications but the overhead makes it less attractive for game development.

its fun to bash java for being slow (having slow execution speed), no matter how untrue it is. I'd rather bash it for its faults -- to start I'll name two:

1. Slow startup. This may contribute to the reputation for slowness, but is really just the setup. It isn't slow execution speed, its the latency from "I want to run this" to "application is started". I'm not saying startup speed should inherently be faster, just that this is a negative and it is also true.

2. Static memory allocation. WTF! You too can re-live the glory days of Apple's operating system before they jumped the shark and went bsd. How much memory an application can possibly use is set as a property/execution parameter and can only be altered between executions. Ummm... seriously? I've always assumed this was due to the VM model they chose and a misguided attempt at security by shackling programs to outdated paradigms, but really?

The only thing Valve does with other people's games is make sure the code gets from their servers to your box. That's all. They don't port, and they don't patch until and unless the publisher provides them with a patch to download from Steam's servers too.

Publishers are not going to bite at something that demands they keep specific-distributor-only builds around just so Valve can build some clunky hypervisor. The only segment of PC gaming that might be worth the effort are sports titles, and EA pretty much has those sewn up tighter than a drum.

Since I heard they were doing Steam for Linux I can't get it out of my head that they should build their own distro. They should probably pursue a similar strategy than the one Google did with Android.

They could partner with hardware manufacturers and certify PCs or console-like devices that they are compliant with the distribution hardware requirements, maybe setting several levels of hardware support. So you can buy a 'level 3' Steam PC, and be sure that a certain number of games run on it without issues.

I would probably buy something like that if the experience was hassle-free enough.

Disclaimer: I avidly use Steam on OSX, but I'm constantly frustrated with it's buggy state. If the linux client proves to be better over time (with a good offering of games) I'll be upgrading my linux box and going that route.

Perhaps the programmers they have working on the Linux version are better than the programmers they got to do the Mac version? Perhaps they know the system better (e.g. the programmers writing the Mac version are Windows programmers who got reassigned, vs. the Linux version where they specifically hired Linux devs)? Perhaps Valve learned some stuff when porting Steam to Mac that they couldn't apply to the Mac version (because it was too far along), but had the advantage of applying to the Linux version? Perhaps they have another reason to make the Linux version particularly better (rumoured Steam console)?

Point is, there are lot of reasons a Linux port might be better than a Mac port.

Because some people like video games, and some people like Linux as a primary OS. There's a lot more overlap than you seem to think there is here, especially with people who would rather spend the money on a custom-built gaming rig than on a Mac Pro.

I've just started using OS X (got a Retina MBP, great hardware), and it's way less convenient than Linux. I'm probably going to switch off it soon as some stuff is really starting to bug me - the main one being the lack of a good package manager. Sure, homebrew exists and it kind of does the job, but it's horrible compared to what I'm used to with Pacman and the AUR under Arch.

Lack of FFM, lack of customizability, lack of middle click highlight and paste. The fact that for some reason applications do not live in/bin and for some reason do not end up in my PATH after installation.

The lack of decent package management is another huge pain. It means like windows many application have their own method of updating which is cumbersome compared to apt or yum.

Basically my biggest usability complaints stem from a lack of X11 conventions that I expect with a UNIXy experience. The whole OSX desktop seems to be designed to only have one window open at a time.

Because as a Unix system, OS X is terribly supported. They made awkward changes to break POSIX compatibility in their basic userland. Sure, we can iTunes all day, but when it comes down to actual work, Linux saves the day with by being a serious UNIX that's not trying to glam over its shortcomings.

Because most Linux users don't want to be subjected to Apple's control of what you can and cannot do on your computer. Not to mention the Apple tax you pay for the hardware. Why do you even ask? What can anyone possibly stand to lose by making more software available on more platforms?

Right, just the other day I was thinking, "gee, it would be really nice if I could run non-Mac applications, too bad I can't compile Qt and use a non-native environment." With the ability to compile there is no "controlling what 'you' can and cannot do".

2. "the Apple tax you pay for the hardware"

Man! That always burns me up to. I mean, once I spec out a system from somewhere else that actually meets the same spe

Steam was released for Mac around May 12, 2010. To answer your question, I'd want to game on any platform I use daily. People use Linux for one reason or another and it's nice to be able to play a game or two.

1) Some people like Linux more than either of the proprietary OSes. This might be because they can configure Linux more, or because it's free, or because it's ideologically free, or because their friend told them to run it, or any of a thousand other reasons.

2) Why not? Many indie developers have already made Linux-compatible games that are also on steam. For instance, most of the Humble Indie bundles have had a requirement of running on Linux, and most of those games also provided steam keys.

I'm going to go with cost as a primary one. That better support you refer to comes with a pretty hefty premium. Also, most Linux folks I'm imagine aren't real fans of Apple's walled garden approach when it comes to... well everything. Macs may be a closer blood relative to Linux with it being basically BSD under the hood, but ideologically they're a LONG way off.

The migration to Linux goes beyond simply bringing games to a new platform. It could be seen as an attempt by Valve to diversify in light of Microsoft's and Apple's closed app store platforms.

In the future, Windows and MacOS may only allow you to install new software packages through their stores. They may allow a small number of third party stores to exist in order to prevent anti-trust accusations, but chances are that they'll demand a cut of all sales.

My big question is if you have a TriBoot Linux/Mac/Win system short of the publisher being a Rotted Male Organ wiould you ahve to buy each platform seperately?? (or would your Steam Account load the "correct" platform each time from one purchase)

If a person is primarily interested in games then a Windows PC is probably the best choice. Hence the popularity of dual boot Windows/Linux rigs among Linux enthusiasts.

However games are sometimes a secondary consideration. A person may have chosen their computer and operating system for some non-gaming reason and that person may still want to play games. This is just as true for Linux as it is for Mac OS X.

Wine and Crossover are doable but they have a cost, an overhead. A fully native port will yield

As a Mac user I know the feeling, but what would you even acquire by trying to game on Linux? There is Macs for unixy world and it has better support than Linux will ever will. Of course Windows is the best platform but mostly because they have things like XNA and.NET. Microsoft has really played their game well. But why on Linux rather than Mac? While Crossover isn't supporting all the games it's at least better and many games have Mac Ports? So if you want to do both unixy world and games why not Mac?

The only good thing about this is the feeling that maybe Mac ports become more frequent too, but I'm not putting lot into that hope as far as Linux support goes.

Valve isn't the problem here - they've been good about bringing their AAA content to Mac and keeping it supported. I expect that they will continue to do the same with Linux.

The problem is that they are the distributors (through Steam) for a bunch of publishers that aren't Mac friendly. However, this gives them a reason to change, if they want to. Some of them can't afford to, some of them just won't and some of them will even be dickbags about it.

I can choose to buy an overpriced computer from Apple or build my own with better specs for the same amount of mullah + doing my own wire management + getting the choice of a case (Lian Li makes some sweet products) and slap Ubuntu (I can choose from a large selection of distros) on there. I have the choice of using an nvidia card not AMD. This is important because of driver support. While people complained of white screens with Macs for Diablo 3, I was happily hacking away at monsters.With an SSD the syste

Seriously... I don't own a single Apple device. I don't consider myself to be in their target market, and I object to paying the prices they're asking for their stuff when I can get gear that's just as good for less. But would it kill you to actually check their fucking website to see if they're still selling it, before you spout off that it's a dead line?

Me too. Having to jam everything through a 4K window made you write a lot more efficient code, instead of what we get today when people have free memory to waste on calculating frames that never get composited or displayed.

>If it turns out that my video card isn't good enough for Valve, then I can upgrade it. I can't do that with a Mac.

Almost all Mac machines are laptops (the Mac Mini and the iMac count as laptops as they use laptop components). When was the last time you saw an upgradeable laptop?

Good point you made there. Apple nigh abandoned its desktop users. Now I'm quite fond of desktops, and desktop gaming. And on my budget my next desktop won't be a mac, but probably/hopefully a linux-mint-debian (I hope I wrote that correctly) desktop. Not a laptop. Not a mac.

No, no it can't. A two or three year old PC can have a new GPU and a memory upgrade and be semi-competant again. A five or six year old PC needs to be rebuilt from the bottom up.

I know, because I'm in the process of doing that right now. My Core 2 Duo + AMD 5570 has gone as far as it is going to go. It's had a GPU update and a memory refresh. It is now CPU limited in most games and buying a new GPU for this old box would be a waste of money.

Sorry but you aren't doing it right. My 2 year old desktop runs every graphic intensive game I've thrown at it on max settings. It sounds like you are doing a poor job selecting motherboards and possibly gpus if you need an upgrade at 2-3yrs. With a motherboard it isn't enough to buy something expensive. You need to be forward looking and buy something that has the ability to run not just the affordable chips and cards you are actually buying but can also run the top of the line just released yesterday and

He's right, though. A C2D/C2Q plus a more up-to-date card than the (*snicker*) 5570 he has now can handle most things you throw at it with ease.He just said "It's already been upgraded, and upgrading it more would be a waste of money because I hold the idea that the CPU isn't powerful enough."

Which Core 2 Duo do you have, because I'd be surprised if a E6850 slightly overclocked couldn't handle the vast majority of the latest games just fine, and the E6850 came out 5.5 years ago, and wasn't very expensive when it was released ($260). Of course, the quads were also available at that time, like the Q6600 and Q6700, not to mention the X6800 which is 6.5 years old.

Sounds like you got a 5-6 year old bargain PC and coupled it with a $80 video card ($80 at release!). I'm not surprised you are having some serious performance issues in games today.

I doubt it. Once you've ported the app to use OpenGL you've already done most the work for getting it to work on Linux or OS X. Compared to getting a Windows app to work natively on Linux, getting a Linux app to work natively on OS X is a walk in the park. Plus I imagine the game manufacturers will want to go after the Mac install base. Have you seen the number of Mac laptops in the average college classroom?

Bullshit. Anything not-Microsoft is going to be just as hard to deal with because that's simply how Microsoft has engineered the situation. If you live in their little garden, it's going to be hard to leave. That's just the way it is.

It doesn't matter what the platform is.

On the other hands, most of the other platforms are not nearly as "exclusive" as Windows. They just don't have the gall of Microsoft or the longstanding desktop monopoly based on legacy DOS applications.

For a lot of people who are serious gamers and actually computer literate, Windows is very grudgingly tolerated simply because it is the platform with the most titles. It has zero other redeeming features. It's less stable, poorer memory management and the core OS been demonstrated time and again to be about 25% more bloated than the Linux kernel. There are a lot of people who live and work in Linux and do not want to have to split their time between two OSes to have a non shitty work environment at home